Is anyone else a bit frustrated?

[terri]

Do you guys agree that the learning process here is just as valuable as the savings in processing? I mean... I just think it's so cool to do this. It seems like it would be so satisfying.

I'm not certain what you mean - can you expand on that?

 

[cigrainger]

I'm not certain what you mean - can you expand on that?

I just mean... I dunno. I'm the kind of guy that liked to play with legos as a kid. Then when I was older I liked to do chemistry experiments, built model rockets, and model cars. I like the satisfaction of doing things myself rather than having it done for me.

I just think there's fun and satisfaction to be had.

And more to the point, learning about the chemical processes that occur in film exposure and development is fascinating to me.

I think there's something to be said about directing photons from a specific moment in time and having them react with silver. It's a physical capture of a specific moment. It's not a recreation. It's not an emulation. It's a way of physically capturing something. Like using old reel to reel tape to record an album (by far a better sound than digital).

Then being able to take that frozen moment and personally preserve it and prepare it for sharing (or not) is awesome to me.

 

[terri]

You're talking to someone who routinely gets photo oils or lithographic inks all over her hands while working.....so I gotta say, I get it.

While I would never disagree with the statement: "It's about the final image, not the process"....I would hold that, for me, enjoyment of the process is a big part of why I do what I do. For some, the enjoyment comes from mastering editing software. For me....I like sensory involvement: I want to literally touch, see, smell (ok, even I will draw the line at taste!) but it's quite a unique and wonderful feeling to be so physically involved in creating an image. Somehow, it augments my pleasure at seeing a well-done finished image, knowing I literally smelled it coming into being or stained my skin with pigment.

Okay, I think that might sound weird. But it just suits me better.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Yes it's about the image for the viewer or the customer, but it's about the experience for me. I can build a camera, then shoot it, show it as look what i can do, then distroy the camera or put it on display and go right back to doing it again.

Yes the image and the viewer really shouldn't care, but we should. For us the whole process is the image. Sometimes the end result can be more about the artist than a simple image.

But the image must stand alone as well.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

.......Still waiting for the rebuttal from "film is dead" poster.

Am I the only one who thought that poster was joking? It was just too random and outrageous to be taken seriously.

I've been thinking of getting the chemistry to develop film at home. My only qualm is that I'm not sure where to hang the film to dry. Do you think rigging a closeline inside the shower would suffice? Otherwise, I was thinking of making a cabinet.

 

[Alex_B]

Wow, now not only do I have to look at all of the [...], neon oversaturated,

Hum, I am guilty of doing the same with some sorts of film

 

[Weaving Wax]

Well, I plan on taking a summer photography course once I move and can't wait to be able to develop my own film and take control over the developing process. I don't know if I'd want to build my own cameras, but I'd like to be able to develop my photos and do some of the stuff Minor White can do, but without photoshop. He's my favorite photographer.

Thanks about the photoshop comments. I'm fairly good with the program. I do make images in photoshop, but that's usually spereate from my photography. I've seen people over do it with the program and some people over do it to the point to where it just looks horrible and it looks like it was obviously done in photoshop.

I don't like the looks of the pixels, either. I've seen some beautiful cityscapes ruined because the small details are pixelated. Plus, I think digital looks too "clean". Some people say that my pictures look "grainy". I don't know why...I use ISO 400....but I think that people get so used to the "clean" look of digital that when they see grain they think it looks "grainy". I personally love grain.. I've seen old pictures of The Beatles from magazines and loving the grain from the pictures...before I even got into photography.

Wheather film is going "backwards" or not isn't even the issue. Photography is an expensive hobby regardless wheather it's digital or film. Besides, just because it's going out of the "mainstream" doesn't mean that we should just give up film for the "better and improved" digital....

 

[cigrainger]

I have to say I agree with you guys a lot. I think the process is one of the best parts, and knowing what's behind the image makes it that much better.

Weaving Wax, I couldn't agree with you more about pixels and grain. The overly "clean" look is my biggest complaint about digital. I want to see at least SOME grain!

 

[Torus34]

AD:

Film can be hung to dry anywhere in the house where there's no strong draft which would carry dust onto it. Drying is a matter of about 15 minutes when humidity is low.

 

[cigrainger]

AD:

Film can be hung to dry anywhere in the house where there's no strong draft which would carry dust onto it. Drying is a matter of about 15 minutes when humidity is low.

Really? I've heard you're supposed to leave it hanging for a few hours? Or is that so it sets straight?

 

[Seefutlung]

I know you guys don't care ... but (the big but), as a former news photog I developed and printed as least five days a week for more than a decade ... and I just love digital ... I love the methodology and mechanics of digital ... (which translates to the ease and speed of digital.)

What I miss is that the mechanics of developing and printing film was (is) so tedious and painful and required one to be half artist/craftsman and half technician. The darkroom was this wide barrier separating photographers from the masses of wannabees ... but now the process from camera to print seems all automatic and technical ... no craft skills required to make an image or to call oneself a photographer. All you need is the little green square on the camera, a plug-in or two for Photoshop ... and for the truly advanced professional a Gary Fong tubberware attachment.

In spite of the fact that digital opened the borders to a realm that was very exclusive, flooding the internet with ignorance, inflated egos and suckie images ... I gotta tell ya ... I'll still take digital over film ... and tomorrow digital will be even better ... while film is standing still.

Just ranting back. If you film only guys/gals ever have a convention ... invite moi ... I'll talk about the Good Ol' Days ... when men were men and cameras were film only and "auto" was an abbreviation for car (well sorta.)

Gary

PS- Just wondering how you film only people rationalize posting digitized images on the internet ... if I was a purest ... lol ... joking ... there is still enough room/tolerance on this planet for film and digital ... just don't take any shots of ducks.

G

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

AD:

Film can be hung to dry anywhere in the house where there's no strong draft which would carry dust onto it. Drying is a matter of about 15 minutes when humidity is low.

Thanks. :sillysmi:

 

[cigrainger]

I know you guys don't care ... but (the big but), as a former news photog I developed and printed as least five days a week for more than a decade ... and I just love digital ... I love the methodology and mechanics of digital ... (which translates to the ease and speed of digital.)

What I miss is that the mechanics of developing and printing film was (is) so tedious and painful and required one to be half artist/craftsman and half technician. The darkroom was this wide barrier separating photographers from the masses of wannabees ... but now the process from camera to print seems all automatic and technical ... no craft skills required to make an image or to call oneself a photographer. All you need is the little green square on the camera, a plug-in or two for Photoshop ... and for the truly advanced professional a Gary Fong tubberware attachment.

In spite of the fact that digital opened the borders to a realm that was very exclusive, flooding the internet with ignorance, inflated egos and suckie images ... I gotta tell ya ... I'll still take digital over film ... and tomorrow digital will be even better ... while film is standing still.

Just ranting back. If you film only guys/gals ever have a convention ... invite moi ... I'll talk about the Good Ol' Days ... when men were men and cameras were film only and "auto" was an abbreviation for car (well sorta.)

Gary

PS- Just wondering how you film only people rationalize posting digitized images on the internet ... if I was a purest ... lol ... joking ... there is still enough room/tolerance on this planet for film and digital ... just don't take any shots of ducks.

G

Hey I shoot both and can't argue that digital is more convenient. I just like the look of film better.

And film may not be standing still. Pretty soon there will be a nano particle color film emulsion. It will revolutionise film when it happens, methinks.

I think even though digital will get better and better, its actually the imperfections (the grain and whatnot) of film that draws many of us to it. You'll never be able to make digital emulate an analog process, no matter what. If you need proof, just look at digital tube amp simulators for guitars.

 

[motcon]

everyone:

have you lost your sense of reasoning? now be gone!

read the original post. really now.

 

[Alex_B]

As of late, I've been increasingly disgusted with my digital results, in favor of the (to me) "more natural" look of film. Sure, digital is more convenient, but PERSONALLY (I don't want to debate over this), I like the look of film more. I like grains over pixels.

exactly, this thread was about things different from what we are discussing now

So please calm down everyone